Welcome Guest! If you are already a member of the BMW MOA, please log in to the forum in the upper right hand corner of this page. Check "Remember Me?" if you wish to stay logged in.

We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMWMOA forum provides.
Why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on
the forum, the club magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMWMOA offers?Want to read the MOA monthly magazine for free? Take a 3-month test ride of the magazine; check here for details.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will need to join the MOA before you can post: click this register link to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

NOTE. Some content will be hidden from you. If you want to view all content, you must register for the forum if you are not a member, or if a member, you must be logged in.

There are two problems with the gang at Cycle World
1) The live in CA and rarely test in the kind of stuff most of us ride in. (Unless you count Egan's incessant blitherings about old Brit stuff)
2) They evaluate most bikes as one would evaluate a toy or a loaner, not as real transporation one might use for a bunch of years. They typically overlook items important to long term users.

So far the guys in our club who own LTs and have looked at the 1600 give it poor marks as an LT replacement and the wives don't like it either. Be intersting to see what happens when their LTs have to be replaced but I'm betting at least one will switch to a Wing- not sure about the others, yet.

Most of the time I think the MCN guys and the Brit publications do a better job at getting it right. But they all do better than the review in ON which have been essentially worthless for all of the new models recently reviewed, either being rephrases of the press release, lacking in any comparisons to previous or similar BMW models, etc etc. For some reasons the RA reviews are better in what they cover but typically they overlook a lot of topics.

I don't have a dog in this one- the 1600 isn't my kind of bike. Too big, too heavy, too complex for simple maintenance. I'm more intersted in seeing where the boxer bikes are going and hoping someone will bring back some more versatile middleweights.

I don't agree. While the bikes are different, according to BMW, the GTL IS their ultimate touring machine and the ‘«£The future of touring‘«ō.

Someone willing to drop 25-35K on a touring machine is entitled to learn the pros and cons of each manufacturers‘«÷ offerings in a particular market segment. In my opinion, comparison to the Gold Wing, or HD, or any other tourer, is legitimate.

I agree. It isn't apples and oranges. It is BMW's new take on touring versus Honda's existing take. I doubt there is going to be an LT update. One can bet there will be all kinds of GTL/GW comparos from the press, and many considering a GW will consider a GTL as well... and make the choice for the GTL, and vice versa.

I'm more intersted in seeing where the boxer bikes are going and hoping someone will bring back some more versatile middleweights.

Looks like the 2013 (14?) wasserboxer will be pretty appealing -- thermal stability and power potential of water cooling in a compact package, wet multiplate clutch, more ergonomically-friendly intake arrangements (no intake tubes/throttle bodies in the shins). Also looks like the Telelever front end will continue (the pics BMW's released have the front suspension mounting point in the right place for a Telelever, and the wrong place for a Duolever). If the next RT gets 2/3 of the capabilities the K16GTL's electronics provide, the RT will be a killer package.

Ahhhh... You note and place the great R1200RT in the mix. Cycle World awarded it "Tourer of the Year" a few years ago (pre-DOHC), and gave the Gold Wing "Honorable Mention". Yet, it also wins sport touring comparisons! What a balancing act. Weighs 200lbs less than the GTL. For those going far, content with keeping things <120 mph, yet wanting something more nimble for back roads and twisties, the refined RT is another option.

I watched a youtube review on both, they said the BMW was a sport touring while the GW was a true touring model, I have had a GW and love the K1600 more lots of torque and lots of mpg, I have 600to miles getting 42mpg

I don't agree. While the bikes are different, according to BMW, the GTL IS their ultimate touring machine and the ‘«£The future of touring‘«ō.

Someone willing to drop 25-35K on a touring machine is entitled to learn the pros and cons of each manufacturers‘«÷ offerings in a particular market segment. In my opinion, comparison to the Gold Wing, or HD, or any other tourer, is legitimate.

Well said! These bikes are competing for the same market. I don't understand or agree with the "Apple to Oranges" argument. one thing I find interesting is that the GW is a decade old design. I would have thought that the new "State of the Art" BMW would have blow the GW out of the water. The GW is due for some updating, Now, that will be an interesting comparison. mnn

"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."

I Agree With the Article

I have ridden both 1600's and like all beemers they seem to have a similar failiure in design. The pegs are too high, the bars are too far forward, and the seats are tourture devices. In this I agree with the Motorcyclist magazine. I also agree that down the road it may be expensive to fix some of the electronics, but so will the wing.

I drive 2010 RT and agree that the cases are not that sturdy. On mine the cable kept comming out and it finally hit the pavement wehnI opened it on the side stand and I scratched the side quite badly.

So I think their experience is raelistic and BMW needs to address some of these issues in their entire bike line.

Don't get me wrong, I like BMW bikes and this is my fourth. They are reliable and do as advertised. They need to work on ergonomics if they want to compete with the big touring bikes.

1600 v/s goldwing

I have ridden both and like the GTL better due to the fact that the BMW is bike for bike the more athletic and would eat the Goldwing's lunch in the twisties.

What I didn't like was the heat from the engine which did a good job cooking my feet. I have ridden Goldwings of 75' vintage up to and including the present and owned 2 of same at different times in my life. What I have NEVER had a problem with was a wing cooking my feet and legs. My question is WHEN THE HELL IS BMW GOING TO FINALLY GET IT AS RELATES TO ENGINE HEAT COOKING THE RIDER AND FIX THE PROBLEM ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!????????? BMW claims to have the best engineers in the business so when are the brass going to finally take them to the woodshead and tell them that they have NO choice but to fix the problem?

The GTL is a two up, fully faired touring machine with loads of comfort and user features. The Goldwing is a two up, fully faired touring machine with loads of comfort and user features. The K1200LT was a two up, fully faired touring machine with loads of comfort and user features. Two questions:

1. Why is the comparison of the GL1800 and the 1600GTL not apples to apples?
2. Why is the 1600GTL not a replacement for the K1200LT?

Ahhhh... You note and place the great R1200RT in the mix. Cycle World awarded it "Tourer of the Year" a few years ago (pre-DOHC), and gave the Gold Wing "Honorable Mention". Yet, it also wins sport touring comparisons! What a balancing act. Weighs 200lbs less than the GTL. For those going far, content with keeping things <120 mph, yet wanting something more nimble for back roads and twisties, the refined RT is another option.

+1

I had use of a 1600 GTL for a few hundred miles. No surprise--it was real nice, but when I got back on my '07 R12RT I realized once again how much I liked it. In many ways the RT is just about perfect for me. My next bike is going to be a DOHC RT.